On to Nevada and South Carolina - The race changed quite a bit last week with Sanders and Trump scoring significant victories in New Hampshire. The unorthodox nature of the race was captured in two stats: “extremist” Trump won the vote of moderate Republicans, and “extremist” Sanders beat a Clinton in NH (a state long favorable to them) among independents by 3 to 1. Sanders and Trump continue to defy easy ideological classification, and the traditional “left-center-right” way of understanding US politics, long overstated and exaggerated, is proving to be particularly unhelpful this cycle. Discontent with the elites and the DC political class continue to be a significant – if not paramount – sentiment driving 2016 on both sides.

On the Democratic side much comes down to the Nevada Caucus this Saturday. If Sanders prevails in such a diverse state, the Dem contest could go on for some time. If Clinton prevails, given her advantage in South Carolina, it could be the beginning of the end of the spirited Sanders insurgency. There is, however, a growing body of evidence (here, here and here) that despite the conventional wisdom, Sanders now has a larger, better funded and deeper campaign, something that could become truly significant in the early March states. It sure appears now that the Clinton campaign simply did not contemplate or plan for a competitive Sanders effort, raising over $80m for the DNC and their SuperPAC over the last few months that would not be accessed until after the nomination was settled. That so much effort was expended raising this much money not designed for use in the primary itself will be a decision long debated; but it leaves the Clinton campaign with the very unpleasant reality that they may be out-spent and out-organized over the critical month ahead (though some of Bernie's possible advantage will be mitigated by free media advantage of Clinton's powerful surrogates, including her husband and daughter, allowing them to be in more than one place a time).

The good news for Hillary is that she is a vastly improved candidate. In my mind she bested a tired Sanders in the debate last Thursday and in general is putting in strong performances when it really matters now. She has also found what may be her first successful and durable attack on Sanders - that she will be far more effective at building on the Obama legacy (i will have more on both the pros and cons of this argument in a later post). I am less convinced the "single issue" attack will work, as Sanders has been anything but a single issue candidate in the election so far. There is a difference from having a powerful overarching narrative (rigged economy, corrupt political system) and being a single issue candidate.

Given that over 50 percent of eligible voters will vote in the two weeks from March 1st through March 15th momentum and organizational strength really matters now. If Clinton wins both Nevada and South Carolina, she will a big advantage heading into our March Madness. If they split, given Bernie’s apparent organizational advantage, expect this period to be very competitive and potentially dangerous for the Clinton candidacy.

On the Republican side, it is a different story. Trump has once again become a powerful and capable frontrunner, and he question of whether any of the next four – Bush, Cruz, Kasich and Rubio – can emerge to go one on one is the big one on the GOP side. As long as the anti-Trump vote remains split, he remains the front runner. The sad truth for Republicans is that just isn’t clear that any of their remaining four challengers is strong or capable enough to defeat Trump. And all of these candidates are going to start having money problems soon, and may not even make it to the all important March window. The unprecedented compression of the primary season into this extraordinary March run benefits candidates like Trump and Clinton with strong name ID and money. Sanders appears to be the only other one with enough of both to seriously challenge after Nevada and South Carolina.

What’s Next – On Thursday, the Democrats have one of their television “townhalls,” this one with MSNBC and Telemundo. On Saturday, the Democrats caucus in Nevada and the Republicans have a traditional primary in South Carolina. Another big week ahead!

GOP Silliness on the Supreme Court – The Republican argument on the next Supreme Court justice boils down to “we don’t want to do it.” Isn’t any more to it than that. And of course that just is not good enough. Yes this is a big new development in 2016. More on this next week.

GOP’s debates continue to outperform the Dems – We have updated our report on Presidential primary debate audiences to include the latest debates. Summary: GOP on track to 5x their 2008 debate totals, Dems will just barely top theirs. So far the R debates have generated 143 viewers, the D debates 55m. It is a large and consequential difference.

"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. Full disclosure: I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the DC Democratic primary, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign.

Later today, both the Democrats and Republicans in Nevada will caucus. Meanwhile in South Carolina, the Republican primary will be under way. That means it's time to display the ads, starting with those airing in Nevada on behalf of the Democrats.

Update: To the best of my knowledge, John Edwards is only running ads in South Carolina; neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel are running ads in Nevada; Rudy Giuliani is pretty much skipping South Carolina, keeping his focus on Florida; and Mitt Romney is choosing Nevada over South Carolina.

It was this week I think that the campaign of 2008 no longer became like some other year, or the candidates like some previous presidential aspirant. After the remarkable comebacks, the rise of Obama and Huckabee, the new and very different calendar, the replacement of burgers with tacos, this race has now officially just come the Presidential campaign of 2008, unique, unlike any other. And it is a quite a campaign.

Building on two previous posts (here and here) I offer my latest take, long, and occassionally cogent:

We are entering a very different stage of the campaign where free media and the reach of the campaign’s supporters will matter much more. There are 3 stages to this year’s primary campaign. Stage 1 is all the states prior to Feb 5th, where voters will see a great deal of candidate time, paid advertising and field-based voter contact. These voters had a great deal of information about the candidates to make up their minds.

Stage 2 will be what amounts to a national primary, where 23 states, some big ones, vote. The campaign will move from a target audience of a million or so voters to a target of tens of millions. Despite the large amounts of money raised by the Democrats, these voters will be voting with much less information. Few will have seen the candidates live, few will have seen a substantial amount of paid media, and the field operations of the campaigns simply cannot touch all these voters in a meaningful way. Voters will be increasingly dependent on the talk in the free media (the press, blogs etc), the debates and contact from trusted friends and colleagues to help them make up their minds. Stage 3 will be the states that come after Super Duper Tuesday, and will take shape only after the enormous vote on Feb 5th.

This means several things. First what happens in Nevada and South Carolina will matter much more than the delegate count. If Obama sweeps in both states he will get a tremendous lift, a lift big enough to potentially give him the nomination. And since he is expected to win in South Carolina, the coming fight for Nevada is going to be very consequential. Which helps explain why the Clinton camp has taken the desperate tact of challenging the Caucus system Nevada has established and approved by the DNC. This move could end up truly blowing up in their faces as it will likely motivate their opponents in Nevada, anger Nevada voters, increasingly turn the labor movement against them and re-evoke the worst of the angry imperial face the Clintons have occasionally shown throughout the campaign.

Second, as the campaign goes national and voters have less information to make their decisions, the vast networks established by Obama and Clinton will become much more central to their campaigns. Much attention has gone to the amount of money raised by the campaigns, but now each of them will be turning to these unprecedented in size networks to engage their friends and colleagues across the country in the campaign. I am already getting in my personal inbox more passionate appeals for and against candidates than any time I can remember. And imagine what will happen if the 1m or so people in Obama’s network all reach out several times to everyone in their own social networks – that 1m could reach 15-20m more. Most studies show that personal contact from a friend, relative or trusted colleague is the most persuasive form of all voter contact. That’s why one data point to track closely in the next few weeks is not only how much money each campaign is raising but how many new people are either giving up or signing up. Which is also why the endorsement of someone like John Kerry, or an organization like Emily’s List, with a very active list of supporters nationally, matters so much more than it used too.

Third, despite’s Barack’s possible sweep of NV and SC, this scenario favors Hillary. Call it the politician we know scenario. Whatever they think of Hillary the voters in the Feb 5th states know Hillary. She has been vetted. She has been around. Her husband has become essentially a running mate, and will allow her campaign to hit twice as many media markets each day. Barack is still unknown to so many, and for all the reasons described above, few voters in the Feb 5th states will be able to directly connect with his charisma and magic as they have in these early states. He has fewer tools to fill in the information gap voters have about him, which why for him winning NV and SC becomes so important. For the Obama world they should be very worried about voters on Feb 5th just deciding to go with the politician they know rather than the one they don’t.

Two new national polls tonight capture both the opportunity and challenge Barack now facing Barack. A Post/ABC Poll has it 42 Clinton, 37 Obama, showing a 25% point gain for Barack over the last few weeks, indicating what could happen if he wins NV and SC. But another poll, a NYTimes/CBS Poll, has it 42 Clinton 27 Obama, largely unchanged since their last poll. This 2nd poll reminds us how hard it is going to be for Barack to fill in the gaps with voters in this coming national primary in just a few weeks time, at the same time the Clinton assault against Barack is growing more pointed, and I think effective.

Hillary’s overall strategy is formidable. The campaign appears to be bearing down on women, Democrats struggling harder to get ahead and Hispanics. Her Hispanic campaign got a boost this week as Sec. Henry Cisneros joined her campaign, and she did very good events Hispanic events in East Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Women were, remarkably, 57 percent of the Democratic vote in both IA and NH. And her laser-like focus on the economy produced for her in New Hampshire as she won this issue – the most important in the campaign today – nine points. Her quick roll out of a credible stimulus plan this week was dexterous, and allows her to maintain the upper hand on this defining issue. In the new Post poll, which had the race close, Clinton leads Obama on the economy by a whopping 13 points.

Obama’s lack of significant engagement on economic issues these past few weeks has to be one of the biggest strategic mysteries of the campaign so far. Obama’s post-partisan positioning, and the absence of a serious campaign in the Hispanic community, will be more challenging for him in the many Feb 5th states with large numbers of Hispanic voters and Democratic-only voters. In the coming days I expect to see Obama toughen up his language on Bush, promote his wife and other female surrogates, emphasize the economy more and significantly ramp up his Hispanic campaign, including letting the very talented Jimmy Learned (his Hispanic media advisor) do his thing.

I thought Senator Clinton was very good on Meet the Press today, and certainly seems to have regained her stride.

The Obama campaign has shown remarkable political strength. Much more than a speech, the Obama campaign now has to be considered one the most impressive Presidential campaigns ever put together. Imagine that this man, African-American, young, unknown to most Americans a year ago, has raised more money and has more donors and more supporters than Hillary Clinton. He won the Iowa Caucus handily, and came within a few thousand votes of also winning New Hampshire, a place steeped in Clinton lore.

The campaign has earned the endorsement of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, respected Senator Bill Bradley, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, influential Congressman George Miller and the governors or Senators of the tough, swing states of Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia. In New Hampshire both Democratic members of Congress supported Barack. And just this week he earned the support of a very powerful set of unions in Nevada, a truly impressive political feat.

If Romney beats McCain in Michigan this week, it could slow the McCain momentum, once again exposing the weakness in their field, but also leaving more independents open for Barack in those states where independents can vote on Feb 5th. The strength Barack has shown throughout this campaign – and particularly these tough days after New Hampshire – increasingly leads me to believe this race could decided after Feb 5th, with two very strong, well funded and competent campaigns going at it till the very end.

I don’t think we saw a Bradley-Wilder effect in NH. The thesis simply doesn’t fit the facts. First, Barack’s vote percentage didn’t drop from the polls leading up the vote. Hillary gained. Thus no one lied about supporting Barack. Second, Barack won men 42-30. This means the Bradley-Wilder effect would have only worked with white women not white men. How exactly would that have worked?

A much more plausible explanation is that women surged for Hillary (something aided by the many moms home that day taking care of their kids – many public schools were closed that day to allow the voting to take place). John Judis makes a similar argument here.

And let me join the chorus of voices expressing their disappointment at both the public and quiet whispering campaign of the Clinton world about Obama’s race, family history and religion. For the Clintons, who ran on healing the racial divide in 1992, I hope we hear no more of secular madrassas, adopted Christianity, shuck and jive, urban drug use or the incredible claim that it is Barack’s campaign fanning the racial fires in America today. The Clintons may want to win this thing but if they do it by continuing to stumble all over Barack’s race and heritage, particularly right before we head to states with heavy Hispanic and African-American populations, they may have a very hard time putting their party back together at the end of the day.

Mark Leibovich of the Times has a very good piece today looking at the history making campaigns of both Clinton and Obama, and the legacy of both the women's rights and civil rights movements. And while we have much to be proud of with their candidacies - and the candidacy of Bill Richardson - the difficulty of the conversation about Barack's candidacy and the role of race reminds all of us how just important the Obama campaign is for the much more racially diverse America of the 21st century.